Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Azadi Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2001

Fortune Oceanic Products Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 March, 2011

20. We have heard both the sides. The issue regarding the applicability of the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Company, cited supra, has not 20 ITA No.2414/Del/2011 been considered by the Assessing Officer although penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell & Company has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. UOI, cited supra, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rathi Super Steel Ltd., Delhi vs Assessee on 8 August, 2016

It would also be relevant to observe that even the charging section 4 as well as section 5 of the Act which deals with the principle of ascertainment of total income under the Act are also subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi 15 ITA NO.2490/Del/2015 Bachao Andolan and Others (supra). Thus, in so far as the applicability of the scope/rate of taxation with respect to the impugned payments make to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the rate of taxation invoked by the assessee based on the DTAAs, which prescribed for a beneficial rate of taxation. However, the case of the Revenue is that the tax deduction at source was required to be made at 20% in the absence of furnishing of PAN by the recipient non-residents, having regard to section 206AA of the Act. In our considered opinion, it would be quite incorrect to say that though the charging section 4 of the Act and section 5 of the Act dealing with ascertainment of total income are subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) of the Act but the provisions of Chapter XVII-B governing tax deduction at source are 16 ITA NO.2490/Del/2015 not subordinate to section 90(2) of the Act. Notably, section 206AA of the Act which is the centre of controversy before us is not a charging section but is a part of a procedural provisions dealing with collection and deduction of tax at source. The provisions of section 195 of the Act which casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Ito, Tds-3,, Ahmedabad vs Sichuan Fortune Projects Management ... on 9 April, 2018

It would also be relevant to observe that even the charging section 4 as well as section 5 of the Act which deals with the principle of ascertainment of total income under the Act are also subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others (supra). Thus, in so far as the applicability of the scope/rate of ITA Nos.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pacific Consultants International vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 December, 2004

8.16 From the above proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, it is clear that the reasonable cause can be said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence or, in other words, a prudent man acting under normal circumstances, to take a particular view of the matter. In the present case, in the facts and circumstances mentioned above and, in particular, on the basis of the agreements and correspondence referred to above, the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to deduct tax at source. The assessee was thus prevented in making compliance of the statutory provisions under such belief. The learned CIT(A) has not properly appreciated these facts while upholding the sustenance of penalty. Hence, we are unable to concur with his findings. We, therefore, set aside his order and cancel the penalty imposed by the AO and as sustained by him under Section 271C. Accordingly, common grounds taken by the assessee for the assessment years under consideration are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Kei Industries Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Ito (International Taxation), New ... on 29 October, 2018

It would also be relevant to observe that even the charging section 4 as well as section 5 of the Act which deals with the principle of ascertainment of total income under the Act are also subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others (supra). Thus, in so far as the applicability of the scope/rate of taxation with respect to the impugned payments make to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the rate of taxation invoked by the assessee based on the DTAAs, which prescribed for a beneficial rate of taxation. However, the case of the Revenue is that the tax deduction at source was required to be made at 20% in the absence of furnishing of PAN by the recipient non-residents, having regard to section 206AA of the Act. In our considered opinion, it would be quite incorrect to say that though the charging section 4 of the Act and section 5 of the Act dealing with ascertainment of total income are subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) of the Act but the provisions of Chapter XVII-B governing tax deduction at source are not subordinate to section 90(2) of the Act. Notably, section 206AA of the Act which is the centre of controversy before us is not a charging section but is a part of a procedural provisions dealing with collection and deduction of tax at source. The provisions of section 195 of the Act which casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

District Education Officer, Dehradun vs Department Of Income Tax

5. Accordingly considering the explanation of the assessee, the CIT(A) was of the view that section 273B of the Income Tax Act squarely covered such a case and the definition of "reasonable cause" as considered in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan vs UOI 252 ITR 471 (Del) and Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 118 Taxman 433 fully supported the assessee's case. Accordingly penalty was deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Emmsons International Ltd., New ... vs Dcit- Cpc Tds, Ghaziabad on 2 April, 2018

It would also be relevant to observe that even the charging section 4 as well as section 5 of the Act which deals with the principle of ascertainment of total income under the Act are also subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others (supra). Thus, in so far as the applicability of the scope/rate of taxation with respect to the impugned payments make to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the rate of taxation invoked by the assessee based on the DTAAs, which prescribed for a beneficial rate of taxation. However, the case of the Revenue is that the tax deduction at source was required to be made at 20% in the absence of furnishing of PAN by the recipient non-residents, having regard to section 206AA of the Act. In our considered opinion, it would be quite incorrect to say that though the charging section 4 of the Act and section 5 of the Act dealing with ascertainment of total income are subordinate to the principle enshrined in section 90(2) of the Act but the provisions of Chapter XVII-B governing tax deduction at source are not subordinate to section 90(2) of the Act. Notably, section 206AA of the Act which is the centre of controversy before us is not a charging section but is a part of a procedural provisions dealing with collection and deduction of tax at source. The provisions of section 195 of the Act which casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

District Education Officer, Dehradun vs Department Of Income Tax on 1 November, 2011

5. Accordingly considering the explanation of the assessee, the CIT(A) was of the view that section 273B of the Income Tax Act squarely covered such a case and the definition of "reasonable cause" as considered in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan vs UOI 252 ITR 471 (Del) and Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 118 Taxman 433 fully supported the assessee's case. Accordingly penalty was deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs Aashthavinayak Estate Company P.Ltd, ... on 31 May, 2018

7.4. Ground No.4 to 9 are against the finding of the Add!.CIT that penalty was leviable u/s.271D of the Act since no reasonable cause could be found in this case. In this regard it is observed that the words 'reasonable cause' have not been defined under the I.T. Act, though, it has been interpreted by various courts. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has enunciated the meaning of the term 'reasonable cause' in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India 252 ITR 471 to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bonafides.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next